“Federal Judge Upholds Racial Preferences in Naval Academy Admissions” (New York Times, December 6, 2024):
A federal judge on Friday denied an effort to stop the U.S. Naval Academy from considering race and ethnicity in admissions, finding that the academy has a distinct interest in using affirmative action to achieve diversity in its student body, and that doing so is a matter of national security.
Judge Bennett said in his decision that 52 percent of enlisted Navy service members belong to racial minority groups, but only 31 percent of officers do. In 2020, only about 17 of the 218 admirals in the Navy were officers of color, he said.
In the Marine Corps, the least diverse branch of the armed services, minority service members make up 35 percent of enlisted Marines, and 29 percent of officers, the judge said.
“There is a significant deficiency in the number of officers of color in the officer corps of the Navy and Marine Corps,” he wrote.
Racial quotas are unconstitutional violations of the 14th Amendment, so there certainly wouldn’t be a quota for “officers of color”. On the other hand, it is clear that the quota hasn’t been met (“significant deficiency in the number”).
Related:
- University of California v. Bakke (1978), in which the virtuous racists running University of California were told by the Supreme Court that their quotas were unconstitutional, but that they could continue being racist so long as they didn’t have any quotas
- see below for what happened when the fearless warriors noticed a virus killing 80-year-olds and decided that it was too dangerous for healthy 18-22-year-olds to congregate in an exam room
Perhaps diverse officer candidates don’t feel as strongly about defending Taiwan or attempting a beachhead landing in Hormuz straight in the war on Iran.
Sounds like this judge didn’t read Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard / Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, which reversed Grutter v. Bollinger.
Grutter v. Bollinger was interesting because it centered around “the compelling interest of ‘diversity,'” but also that UMich ~undergrad~ system, which assigned points for GPA, points for SAT, and also HUGE POINTS FOR RACE was bad, but the ~Law School’s~ policy was acceptable because it didn’t use explicit points, just a touchy-feely hand on the scale. In other words, “discrimination is OK if you don’t use math,” which the Law School didn’t because a) with fewer applicants they can afford a higher-touch process and b) lawyers suck at math.
Can’t some of the admirals just identify as “officers of color” to meet the quotas that don’t exist?
Highly haram. Pretending to be white (“passing”) seems to be okay, however.
US having not best officers and admirals is a vital matter of national security for Iran, China and our other possible adversaries. Are judge Bennett’s finances vested abroad? Has his grandmother recently left him large inheritance?
Disparate impact is the law. Mere statistical disproportionality is all you need.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
This is in the sights of the incoming administration.
How did disparate impact come into play in the Students for Fair Admissions cases mentioned by the above bargainer? The law seems contradictory to me.